Is Jiva the same thing according to Ramanuja and Shankara?

[Shantanu]

I have a couple more questions that are related to this topic. A few days back i was having a discussion with Mr. Dennis (of advaita-vision.org). He wrote many books on advaita. Anyway, we were discussing whether Atman dwells within us or not, and he said that according to advaita, Atman never resides IN the body. Even on quora many followers of advaita have said the same thing that Atman never remains IN the body. I guess they hold onto this view because Atman in the upanishads is described as infinite or omnipresent and so probably doesn't have a specific location.

So my question is, if Atman doesn't reside within the subtle or gross body, then what exactly Krishna meant in Gita v2.22 by the word 'dehi'?

Here's the word to word translation (taken from a dwaita or vaishnava site).
According to the bhaktaas its the embodied soul.

vāsānsi—garments;
jīrṇāni—worn-out;
yathā—as;
vihāya—sheds;
navāni—new;
gṛihṇāti—accepts;
naraḥ—a person;
aparāṇi—others;
tathā—likewise;
śharīrāṇi—bodies;
vihāya—casting off;
jirṇāni—worn-out;
anyāni—other;
sanyāti—enters;
navāni—new;
dehī—the embodied soul

.............

Here's the word to word translation taken from an Advaita site. According to advaitins dehi is the body dweller. Not sure which body. Subtle, gross or both?

vaasaamsi : clothes
jeernaani : old
yathaa : just like
vihaaya: discard
navaani : new
grihnaati : wears
naraha : individual
aparaani: other
tathaa : so does
shareeraani : bodies
vihaaya : discard
jeernaani : old
ayanyaani : other
samyaati : obtains
navaani : new
dehee : body-dweller

So what is this dehi? ... If its not the Atman, then what is it?

These matters need to be updated from current scientific knowledge that describes matter and how the body and mind are constructed in biology. Here is a snapshot: Consciousness Energy of the Universe.

Based on this I would say what I have said to Salixincendium, namely, that Atman is not the witness. Atman is Brahman (physical energy and consciousness energy with its gunas); Paramatman is the witness.
The jiva is the human body and mind, and with the the atman it becomes jivatman, which is the Doer.
The jivatman can communicate with Paramatman and receive back information explicitly getting the jivatman to do things. So Parmamatman is not just the witness, it is a Guide.
This is where bhakti comes into play in the jivatman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Vvāsāḿsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya, navāni gṛhṇāti naro 'parāṇi;
tathā śarīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇāny, anyāni saḿyāti navāni dehī." BG 2.22

Dehi: Surrounding wall, bank, mound, rampart - within some parameter. Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit
The embodied will be 'dehin'. But that does not occur in the verse. Biased translation.

Aupmanyav's translation: As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, it* verily accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

Note: There is no mention of soul in the verse. Which and where is the word which people are translating as soul? It is Brahman which is taking up a new form.

 

[ameyAtmA]

I have a couple more questions ... we were discussing whether Atman dwells within us or not, and he said that according to advaita, Atman never resides IN the body. Even on quora many followers of advaita have said the same thing that Atman never remains IN the body. I guess they hold onto this view because Atman in the upanishads is described as infinite or omnipresent and so probably doesn't have a specific location.

So my question is, if Atman doesn't reside within the subtle or gross body, then what exactly Krishna meant in Gita v2.22 by the word 'dehi'?
So what is this dehi? ... If its not the Atman, then what is it?

Dehi is the transmigrating token-identifier , the ahaMkAr , the ego

The Chaturvyuha - the 4 whorls (vyuha) of the inner Lotus :

0. AtmA = Pure Self = VAsudev, Myself -- innermost whorl
1. ahaMkAr = functional ego = SankarshaN (token-identifier I am X, this is mine, I live here...)
2. mAnas = feeling, emotional mind = Pradyumna
3. buddhI = logical intellect = Aniruddha

BG 10.20 aham AtmA guDAkesha, jeeva-bhUtAshaya shtitah: |
aham Adischa madhyam cha bhUtAnAm anta eva cha ||
I am the Self, O Arjun-who-has-conquered-sleep (GuDAkesh), situated (sthita) as the base and foundation (Ashaya) of all living beings (jeeva) and elements (bhUta).
I am their beginning, middle as well as their end.

[They start with Me, and end with Me, I am the Source and the Sink]


BG 15.7 mAmaivaMsho jeevaloke jeevabhUta sanAtanah: |
manah:shashThAnI indriyANi prakRuti sthAna karshati ||
The [temporary identifier token-tag for] the living entity, is but My part** . This one, gets attracted by and entangled in the mind and 5 senses which are situated in (a result of) prakRuti - material Nature.

**My part, not exactly Me, because they are entangled, allow prakRuti (prAkRut mind) to control them.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

These matters need to be updated from current scientific knowledge that describes matter and how the body and mind are constructed in biology. Here is a snapshot: Consciousness Energy of the Universe.

Based on this I would say what I have said to Salixincendium, namely, that Atman is not the witness. Atman is Brahman (physical energy and consciousness energy with its gunas); Paramatman is the witness.
The jiva is the human body and mind, and with the the atman it becomes jivatman, which is the Doer.
The jivatman can communicate with Paramatman and receive back information explicitly getting the jivatman to do things. So Parmamatman is not just the witness, it is a Guide.
This is where bhakti comes into play in the jivatman.

That's duality bro. You've mentioned two different spirits in your post. Brahman with gunas (Atman) and the witness without gunas (parmatman). And that the lower jivatma can communicate with the super paramtama. This is what ISKCON preaches. This is not advaita. According to advaita there's only ONE single spirit Brahman AKA Atman AKA Paramatma. These 3 words can be used interchangebly and refers to the ONE spirit consciousness.
When this ONE spirit after manifesting as bodies/minds, starts recognizes itself as bodies/minds instead of its true nature, then such a stage is called the jivatma or jiva stage. But that same spirit, upon realizing its spirit nature while living in the body, would be called a being of paramatma nature, like in the case of Ramakrishna or Ramana Maharshi, who realized their true parmatma nature. This is the jivan mukta or parmatma stage. Upon jivan mukti, one finds their true or higher nature. Their param nature.
That is why the advaitins claim themselves as God. They say that you yourself is Brahman/paramatma/God/witness/awareness etc. (without the gunas ofcourse).

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Dehi is the transmigrating token-identifier , the ahaMkAr , the ego

The Chaturvyuha - the 4 whorls (vyuha) of the inner Lotus :

0. AtmA = Pure Self = VAsudev, Myself -- innermost whorl
1. ahaMkAr = functional ego = SankarshaN (token-identifier I am X, this is mine, I live here...)
2. mAnas = feeling, emotional mind = Pradyumna
3. buddhI = logical intellect = Aniruddha

BG 10.20 aham AtmA guDAkesha, jeeva-bhUtAshaya shtitah: |
aham Adischa madhyam cha bhUtAnAm anta eva cha ||
I am the Self, O Arjun-who-has-conquered-sleep (GuDAkesh), situated (sthita) as the base and foundation (Ashaya) of all living beings (jeeva) and elements (bhUta).
I am their beginning, middle as well as their end.

[They start with Me, and end with Me, I am the Source and the Sink]


BG 15.7 mAmaivaMsho jeevaloke jeevabhUta sanAtanah: |
manah:shashThAnI indriyANi prakRuti sthAna karshati ||
The [temporary identifier token-tag for] the living entity, is but My part** . This one, gets attracted by and entangled in the mind and 5 senses which are situated in (a result of) prakRuti - material Nature.

**My part, not exactly Me, because they are entangled, allow prakRuti (prAkRut mind) to control them.

Thanks ameyAtmA ... Since dehi is ego and ego is part of the antahkarana/subtle body, is it then fair to say that dehi is nothing but the subtle body?

In other words, ahamkara = subtle body = dehi = jivatman = jiva??

 

[Shantanu]

That's duality bro. You've mentioned two different spirits in your post. Brahman with gunas (Atman) and the witness without gunas (parmatman). And that the lower jivatma can communicate with the super paramtama. This is what ISKCON preaches. This is not advaita. According to advaita there's only ONE single spirit Brahman AKA Atman AKA Paramatma. These 3 words can be used interchangebly and refers to the ONE spirit consciousness.
When this ONE spirit after manifesting as bodies/minds, starts recognizes itself as bodies/minds instead of its true nature, then such a stage is called the jivatma or jiva stage. But that same spirit, upon realizing its spirit nature while living in the body, would be called a being of paramatma nature, like in the case of Ramakrishna or Ramana Maharshi, who realized their true parmatma nature. This is the jivan mukta or parmatma stage. Upon jivan mukti, one finds their true or higher nature. Their param nature.
That is why the advaitins claim themselves as God. They say that you yourself is Brahman/paramatma/God/witness/awareness etc. (without the gunas ofcourse).

You see Greg, in India with its massive population people have to learn how to survive first. They do not have time to determine what advaita is according to rishis and munis. When they have finished their daily chores in their fight for survival amid poverty they go to the temple for darshan. Those who do not have to struggle for survival have time to visit gurus and learn about spiritual matters. They are then referred to the Vedas and the sages who have become famous such as the ones you quote.

The question that then arises is how does what you have just prescribed as advaitic reality solve the problems of the poor in their struggle for survival?

 

[ajay0]

Dehi is the transmigrating token-identifier , the ahaMkAr , the ego

AmeyAtma has nailed it. Dehi is the transmigrating body of vasanas or impressions, created due to actions performed under the influence of desire in the form of cravings and aversions.

When these vasanas are eliminated through constant awareness or meditation or spiritual practices, it leads to enlightenment or liberation from the bondage of karma.

An example of the influence of these vasanas can be stated here...

If one takes coffee regularly for ten days in a row at 3 p.m, on the eleventh day, one would take coffee at 3 p.m out of habit or unconscious compulsion, due to the creation of vasanas or egocentric impressions. But if one does the process consciously or mindfully, one will be immune to the compulsive habit forces of the unconscious.

Be careful what you choose to do consciously, for unless your will is very strong, that is what you may have to do repeatedly and compulsively through the habit-influencing power of the subconscious mind. - Paramahamsa Yogananda

Bad habits and addictions are but very strong impressions in the unconscious and they can be neutralized by awareness and conscious actions.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

You see Greg, in India with its massive population people have to learn how to survive first. They do not have time to determine what advaita is according to rishis and munis. When they have finished their daily chores in their fight for survival amid poverty they go to the temple for darshan. Those who do not have to struggle for survival have time to visit gurus and learn about spiritual matters. They are then referred to the Vedas and the sages who have become famous such as the ones you quote.

The question that then arises is how does what you have just prescribed as advaitic reality solve the problems of the poor in their struggle for survival?

True, most people don't have the time to enquire about the ultimate reality due to their busy life schedule, struggles etc. and so they remain ignorant of their true nature and see distinction between themselves and the Absolute. I think this gave rise to the dualistic philosophy. They have twisted the contents of the upanishads as per their own needs. Brahman who is sarva vyapi (omnipresent, all pervasive) how can it emit from the toe of Vishnu. How can it fly from one body to the other if its everywhere.

Advaita may not be suitable for the common masses, but it definitely doesn't deny the existence of saguna God. Ramakrishna believed in both Saguna and Nirakara. And so did Shankara. He praised Vishnu in the introduction of his commentaries, but according to him saguna worship and rituals are meant for common folks.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

AmeyAtma has nailed it. Dehi is the transmigrating body of vasanas or impressions

.

So is it ok to call this dehi the subtle body? Or is it causal body? Or is it both? Thanks.

 

[Shantanu]

True, most people don't have the time to enquire about the ultimate reality due to their busy life schedule, struggles etc. and so they remain ignorant of their true nature and see distinction between themselves and the Absolute. I think this gave rise to the dualistic philosophy. They have twisted the contents of the upanishads as per their own needs. Brahman who is sarva vyapi (omnipresent, all pervasive) how can it emit from the toe of Vishnu. How can it fly from one body to the other if its everywhere.

Advaita may not be suitable for the common masses, but it definitely doesn't deny the existence of saguna God. Ramakrishna believed in both Saguna and Nirakara. And so did Shankara. He praised Vishnu in the introduction of his commentaries, but according to him saguna worship and rituals are meant for common folks.

Nice theory Greg: very neat indeed, seems that it is akin to what @ajay0 talks about. But so is Aup's theory of advaita, a very neat theory indeed in its own right. And of course my theory is also advaita because by advaita I mean 'the self enmeshed in the perceived reality'. So you will realise that in Hinduism as @Aupmanyav has pointed out before there are many heads thinking of the ultimate reality.

I call my outlook satya-advaita, or truth accommodation to distinguish it from other types of advaita. It incorprates the gunas in a bid to help explain the diversity among human beings which your advaita would be hard pressed to explain. But this DIR is not a debating chamber. Here we experess our own ideas in the vastness of Hinduism.

 

[ajay0]

.

So is it ok to call this dehi the subtle body? Or is it causal body? Or is it both? Thanks.

The causal body is the seed of the subtle body and gross body. It contains the impressions or vasanas that is the cause of desire and ego which is separate from the pure Atman. The causal body generally refers to the highest or innermost body that veils the Atman.

Three Bodies Doctrine (Vedanta) - Wikipedia

Causal body - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Advaita may not be suitable for the common masses, but it definitely doesn't deny the existence of saguna God. Ramakrishna believed in both Saguna and Nirakara. And so did Shankara. He praised Vishnu in the introduction of his commentaries, but according to him saguna worship and rituals are meant for common folks.

Depends on the person himself as to how one would define it. True, Sankara (accepted it with conditions that you mention) and Ramarksihna accepted Saguna, but that does not make it essential for all advaitists to toe the line. Hindus are such a varied and insistent lot, "Tunde tunde matirbhinna" (Head to head, different views). No one ready to give up his/her views.

Dehi as I quoted from the dictionary is the envelope, the covering, IMHO.
Dehin: Something that occupies the dehi. - Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

 

[Aupmanyav]

Example of the use of 'dehin':

"Dehino 'smin yathā dehe, kaumāraḿ yauvanaḿ jarā;
tathā dehāntara-prāptir, dhīras tatra na muhyati." Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 2.13: Contents of the Gita Summarized, Text 13.

(As the embodied continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, it similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.)

 

[Shantanu]

Example of the use of 'dehin':

"Dehino 'smin yathā dehe, kaumāraḿ yauvanaḿ jarā;
tathā dehāntara-prāptir, dhīras tatra na muhyati." Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 2.13: Contents of the Gita Summarized, Text 13.

(As the embodied continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, it similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.)

Of course that is true, atman (being composed of physical energy and consciousness energy incorporating the gunas, the seeker having to need to transcend the gunas through yoga in order to meet Paramatma Sri Krishna) means that the atman embodied does pass in the body from boyhood to old age, and upon death the atman disintegrates into Nature for it to be subsequently absorbed by plants and then animals thereby getting into another body later. Reincarnation is restricted to this phenomenon. And so the atman does not remember sanskaras from previous bodily existences. The samskaras are passed on to Paramatma at death and if the life led has been a good one the memory ends up in God's Brahmaloka.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

The causal body is the seed of the subtle body and gross body. It contains the impressions or vasanas that is the cause of desire and ego which is separate from the pure Atman. The causal body generally refers to the highest or innermost body that veils the Atman.

Things are still not clear to me. So you'll have to forgive me here for continuing with this discussion.

AmeyAtmA said dehi is the ego, which we all know is part of the subtlebody.

Then you said that dehi is the transmigrating body of impressions. And we all know that vasanas or impressions are stored in causal body, which acts as a seed, as you've described above.

So, it seems to me that dehi should be the causal body. I mean, when it carries all the impressions, don't you think it also carries the ego in a latent state, and later that ego develops in its entirety and forms the subtle body?

 

[ajay0]

Things are still not clear to me. So you'll have to forgive me here for continuing with this discussion.

AmeyAtmA said dehi is the ego, which we all know is part of the subtlebody.

Then you said that dehi is the transmigrating body of impressions. And we all know that vasanas or impressions are stored in causal body, which acts as a seed, as you've described above.

So, it seems to me that dehi should be the causal body. I mean, when it carries all the impressions, don't you think it also carries the ego in a latent state, and later that ego develops in its entirety and forms the subtle body?

Deha means body, and dehi is obviously the possessor or owner of the body.

That would mean the subtle body, which is the body of the mind and vital energies (prana/chi), which keeps the body alive.Together with the causal body( from which it sprouts or extends from), it is the transmigrating soul or jiva, separating from the gross body upon death.

The causal body which is the body of past egocentric impressions, is contained in the subtle body. And so yes, it contains the ego in a latent state.

Meher Baba considered the subtle body as the vehicle of desires and vital forces. Desire (craving-aversion) is the expression of the ego , and vice versa.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To whom have you addressed this post, Greg? Shantanu?

 

[Shantanu]

To whom have you addressed this post, Greg? Shantanu?

It would not be addressed to me Aup: I think I am on @ajay0 ignore list.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

atman (being composed of physical energy and consciousness energy incorporating the gunas...

By physical energy you probably meant the 5 karmendriyas.
By consciousness energy you probably meant the jnanendriyas + manas,buddhi,chitta,ahamkara.
These two (physical and consciousness energies) are products of subtle body or prakriti. The ATMAN is beyond that.
Atman is Distinct From the Three Bodiesv

...upon death the atman disintegrates into Nature

By atman you probably meant jivatma/jiva/subtle body since it is made of the 5 elements of prakriti and so it will again disintegrate into the womb of prakriti when the mental imprints are destroyed on self realization.
But ATMAN AKA BRAHMAN, the great spirit that pervades everything, never disintegrates, nor it is destroyed. It is eternal and immortal. Only the shapes or forms it assumes through its maya shakti, disintegrates. But IT itself (its pure spirit state) never disintegrates or destroyed.

The seeker having to need to transcend the gunas through yoga in order to meet Paramatma.

The seeker IS the paramatma who due to its forgetfulness is called jivatma. There are no two spirits. Only one spirit. That same spirit in its param state is called God, enlightened swamis etc.
Its true enlightened swamis won't have the power to create universes like God would normally do. And this is something i'm still trying to understand. Can self realized swamis truly have all the powers of God after mukti? Perhaps the experts here can answer this question.

 

[Shantanu]

By physical energy you probably meant the 5 karmendriyas.
By consciousness energy you probably meant the jnanendriyas + manas,buddhi,chitta,ahamkara.
These two (physical and consciousness energies) are products of subtle body or prakriti. The ATMAN is beyond that.
Atman is Distinct From the Three Bodiesv


By atman you probably meant jivatma/jiva/subtle body since it is made of the 5 elements of prakriti and so it will again disintegrate into the womb of prakriti when the mental imprints are destroyed on self realization.
But ATMAN AKA BRAHMAN, the great spirit that pervades everything, never disintegrates, nor it is destroyed. It is eternal and immortal. Only the shapes or forms it assumes through its maya shakti, disintegrates. But IT itself (its pure spirit state) never disintegrates or destroyed.


The seeker IS the paramatma who due to its forgetfulness is called jivatma. There are no two spirits. Only one spirit. That same spirit in its param state is called God, enlightened swamis etc.
Its true enlightened swamis won't have the power to create universes like God would normally do. And this is something i'm still trying to understand. Can self realized swamis truly have all the powers of God after mukti? Perhaps the experts here can answer this question.

I am not here to change anyone's views of advaita: I have my own understanding in accordance with my knowledge of science. I do not use Hindu terms from the scriptures to discuss my advaita as I believe we should use simple English terminology that anyone can understand. I have no idea what you mean by the terms you have used even though I am Indian and well versed in Hindi, Oriya, Bengali and Urdu.